AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Strong answers describe role- and stack-specific learning paths; generic one-size-fits-all courseware has materially lower completion and retention rates in practice.
Course completion is a vanity metric; look for a real measured reduction in vulnerability introduction rate, ideally tied to SAST/SCA findings pre/post training, backed by a named customer.
Just-in-time, finding-triggered training is measurably more effective than annual/quarterly standalone courses since it's delivered while the context is fresh.
Hands-on exercises in a realistic sandbox build materially more skill than multiple-choice quizzes; ask for a sample exercise to judge realism directly.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Look for genuine tool-embedded delivery, not a separate LMS portal developers must remember to visit outside their normal workflow.
Ask for a stated content-refresh cadence; secure-coding content that hasn't been updated in years will train developers on outdated patterns.
Strong answers provide both individual compliance evidence (for audits) and aggregate risk-trend reporting (for leadership), not just a raw completion percentage.
Dedicated champions-program tooling (leaderboards, advanced tracks, peer-review support) signals a more mature offering than one built purely around individual assignment.
Look for transparent, tier-differentiated pricing that's explicit about which capabilities (e.g., contextual JIT training) are gated behind a premium tier rather than included in the base product.
Real-incident-driven training content is materially more relevant and impactful than generic curriculum content — ask for a concrete example of this closed-loop capability, not just confirmation that contextual training exists in the abstract.
Trend-over-time organizational maturity reporting is a distinct capability from per-developer completion tracking — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Look for a specific accessibility standard cited and ideally an independent audit — this is a real compliance requirement for many organizations, not a nice-to-have.
AI-assisted coding is a genuinely emerging risk surface with its own specific failure modes — a vendor's curriculum should have a specific, current answer on this rather than only covering traditional manual-coding vulnerability classes.
A genuinely global engineering organization needs real multi-language support — ask for specific language coverage rather than an English-only platform with translated menus but not real content.
A genuine closed-loop (finding → training → verified behavior change in later code) is a materially stronger claim than training assignment alone with no measured downstream verification.
Ask for a real completion-rate figure from a customer reference, not just a provisioning/assignment capability — incomplete rollout leaves real coverage gaps in exactly the population most likely to introduce vulnerabilities.